Games as a service is fraud

[mcnally86]

Renting time? In a subscription based MMO sure, but that's unrelated to knowing when servers will shut down. It's literally no different - both are online games that will only live for as long as they're financially sustainable/profitable.

If you're not paying attention and buying online-only games without realizing it, that's an issue with the consumer not informing themselves about the product they buy. It's no different than something like Lawbringers (which I think I referenced earlier), but we don't see anyone calling games like that a fraud despite it being the same core concept - not enough revenue/players? Game closes permanently.

You asked the forum to describe a video you didn't bother watching and now you are arguing with me about what was in the video. Comment on Ross' video dude, or you know don't, since he covers the points you are making in the video.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Make your point in a paragraph and stop wasting people's time. Jesus Christ man, somebody out there actually thought their rant is worth one hour and fifteen minutes.

You know some topics are complicated right? The first 5 pages of this thread are people arguing what GAAS means. So what if Ross takes 10 minutes. He also covers court cases and international law. Super quick subjects that can all be summed up in a paragraph.

- - - Updated - - -

The other side of the equation is that the games industry itself is going through an incredibly rapid transformation. First from physical media(Disks -> CD -> DVD) to digital, and now we have an upcoming possibility to transfer from Digital to purely streaming programs. The business models are having a hard time keeping up with that.

I get that but at the same time I work with kids. I often see themselves push themselves into a corner because they keep going, next thing, next thing, next thing, next thing. That is what the industry is doing. They are making castles of sand, and when Suzy inevitably kicks that sand in their stupid face because they threw DRM spiders in her hair, I will try not to laugh at the games industry crying "she started it!" They need a time out to think about what they have done and course correct before laws catch up with them.

[Inukashi]

I don't think WoW will shut down ever. It will go free to play at some point, all servers will merge into one and the last 10 WoW players will be happy till the end of time.

You can still play diablo 1 today.

[SirCowdog]

I get that but at the same time I work with kids. I often see themselves push themselves into a corner because they keep going, next thing, next thing, next thing, next thing. That is what the industry is doing. They are making castles of sand, and when Suzy inevitably kicks that sand in their stupid face because they threw DRM spiders in her hair, I will try not to laugh at the games industry crying "she started it!" They need a time out to think about what they have done and course correct before laws catch up with them.

The problem with that is that corporations are not kids. They're sociopathic conglomerations of employees run by profit driven directives(and often greedy or selfish CEO/CFOs)

As much as we'd like them to act responsibly and with a consumer friendly behavior, we've seen time after time that, given a choice, they will only do what's in their best interests, no matter the side effects or byproducts. The Epic Games store is a perfect example of this.

We definitely need better laws. On that point I fully agree. Until then it's up to the market and the consumers to be smart about how these issues are approached.

[Frozen Death Knight]

The literal title of this video is in fact click bait.

Other posters have already commented about how he picks and choose when and where he can use the term, aka typical click bait "my point is the only one" strat youtubers use.

Even if I'm wrong and this video is literally a one off for him guess what? It's still click bait, it's still trying to get cheap likes from the "gamers rise up!" crowd. So do I need to check any data? Nope. Title of the video uses a broad term to generalize, then generalizes them with a sensational word such as "fraud" that is clickbait 101. Check your own data before defending this shit. No one asked for this to be posted here, but it was and the video is rightfully getting roasted for the garbage it is.

Don't really agree that it is clickbait. The guy is making a decent case for why specific types of them are fraud using other types of services and products as a basis for why GaaS do not fulfill the requirements for being a service. I especially find the argument that service games do not provide an actual time frame for how long the "service" gets provided to be a solid one, since gaming companies never provide such information for how long they plan on having a service game stay accessible. At least with old arcade machines you knew that you got a set amount of time with the game based on performance or time spent, but few service games today where you buy the game act in such a manner. He also excluded free to play games as being fraud when those could more easily get categorized as service games, since the consumer does not actually buy the product. The guy didn't just make a blanket statement about every type of GaaS and left some wiggle room for service games to legally function.

Saying that the entire video is just clickbait is just trying to distract from the actual arguments he made. Also, by the way you are talking, it doesn't even sound like you actually watched the whole thing.

[Vash The Stampede]

And yet people already play at a pro level on their home computers using their standard high-speed internet, using only today's technology.

Latency you see in a game that runs on your local machine vs streaming is the not the same latency. The game client shows you instant action but it really isn't. That's why sometimes you think you shot someone first but it turns out they shot you first because the game client is tricking you to make the action seem instant. There's also a difference between sending a few packets of data vs gigabytes of data per second.

I agree that games that require super-high levels of reaction speed and timing will always be an issue, but I also think you're overstating the issue. This type of service wouldn't be targeted at those super-high level players, because they only make up a small percentage of gamers playing a small subset of all games. In the larger scope of ALL internet activity, there's plenty of business to be had.

I think you're understating the issue. Nobody likes to hit a button and watch as their character takes half a second to react. That's like coming from a 1970's car where the steering feels floaty and you can turn the wheel left and right and the car hardly moves, but all modern cars have stiff response steering because people like responsive cars. It's also safer because the quicker the car responds to your response the safer your driving will be. The same applies to latency in games.

I also think it's very possible to get the latency down to a point of similar levels that you see from input lag and screen latency. A matter of milliseconds. Maybe not with commonly available technology under suppressive businesses like Comcast, but potentially in the future if the idea takes hold in the market and become popular and convenient.

Like I said, you can't fix latency to be like that of today's game consoles or PC's. You are limited by the speed of light, or in this case the speed of electricity which is slower. The only solution is to move the servers closer to where you live, which defeats the purpose of cloud gaming to begin with. You're transcoding, decoding video at the same time which will also add lag. No amount of technology will ever fix this.

We've already seen how popular the Nintendo Switch is, largely due to being able to pick it up and use it wherever you are. Now extend that functionality to everything a PC can do!

Nope, stop right there. It isn't comparable to PC gaming. Stadia is limited to 1080p 60fps, which just about any low end gaming PC can do today. While Google says it can do 4k but at 30 Mbps while 1080p needs 25 Mbps. Going from 1080p to 4k more than doubles the pixels but Stadia only needs 5 Mbps more. It goes to show what Google employee's are willing to say to promote Stadia.

Also PC gaming can do things like mods, emulators, and a wide range of choices where to buy our games.

There is a LOT of potential there beyond just gaming to push the tech forward. In many ways it seems like a natural progression of the mobile phone as well. And we all know how massive THAT market is.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's failure isn't nearly as much of a foregone conclusion as you seem to be implying.

When Google wants to come back down to reality then they could turn Stadia into a Linux gaming service since I hear their games will run on Debian, which I believe would push the tech forward in a proper direction. As we all know the future of gaming is on Linux.

Besides the latency you can't fix, the bandwidth that isn't there, the image quality you lose due to compression. Besides all those things working against Stadia, how are people going to buy games? How much is the service going to cost? Real world numbers not fantasy numbers. Is Stadia going to be $25, $15, $10, FREE per month? What about data cap costs? How much is the thin client plus controller? What happens if I stop paying for the service, do I get a copy of the game to play locally on my PC?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, I was largely remembering the whole Music industry argument against Napster, etc... and the crazy amounts of damages they claimed on the presumption that people randomly listening to a song on the internet would have instead shelled out $15-20 for a CD instead.

Consumers won in the end. Nobody pays $15-20 for a bundle of music, we either pay for the service or buy it per song.

But to bring it around to games, I'd love if most purchased games had the option for private servers... with a couple fears that may not apply to all games and genres...

#1. A verification portal/lobby that could easily be disabled by the developer if/when support for the game is discontinued
#2. Hacking concerns. If you're playing with your buddies, you're probably modifying the game the way you want to play it. If its a game where strangers are playing, modifications become a concern, especially if the only options are private servers that might not disclose the ways the game has been modified to benefit the host.
#3. Additional development costs for private server support might be higher than the estimated costs for public server support over the projected lifespan of the game.
#4. I believe #s costs, and losses due to potential piracy, would likely be outweighed by a delayed rollout of public server support. Most game sales are in the first month, now, anyways... so planning on a feature like this after 1-6 months could be used as a way to retain and energize 'hardcore' players, and attract additional purchase from their friends, or people who had a 'wait and see' approach

#1 That's when they are required by law to release a client/server version that doesn't require authentication.
#2 Then that's a reason to play on official servers. If you have concerns about hacking on a not official server then pay up.
#3 Don't care, just do it. If it costs more then you made it unnecessarily complicated.
#4 Let the consumer decide what is or isn't to their best interests. It's obviously going to make less money for companies, but I'm not worried about their bottom line, I'm worried about consumer rights. Let them worry about their bottom line.

In regards to WoW,

Subscription MMOs are a different beast entirely from buy2play games. Ostensibly, the cost for the subscription is a 'live service' fee, and used to fund additional 'content' (how I loathe that word when people bandy it around). Excluding the microtransactions from this debate, I would be content paying retail in addition to the subscription, if the retail cost subsidized development of new content & features, and the subscription fees were used to pay for maintenance and improvement of existing features. After several expansions of playing WoW, I realized that whatever internal politics there were in the company, it allowed them to pay to "Build bridges and roads" for new expansions that would sell copies... but when it comes to maintaining and improving those roads, the funds were never there, and often ended in features that *could* have been an enjoyable part of the game, getting ignored and later cut entirely. And I tried to avoid it, but the service transactions basically incentivize Blizzard to create a substandard experience and then charge people to improve it. This is par for course for a game that would otherwise be free, but its !@#$ing awful in a game I paid for twice already.

They aren't adding content to the MMO, but finishing the game they sold to you at $50 or $60. That $15 could be for content, but it could be for maintaining servers as well. Who knows, who cares. The money train is over and it's time to give back to consumers. The fact that people have made private servers shows that it isn't that different from buy2play games. I believe that WoW is failing for this reason because nobody wants to pay the $15 fee and nobody likes being told what they can do with their games. Gamers are gonna want to mod their games, and they're going to want to avoid the reoccurring fee. Nobody likes subscription fees.

[SirCowdog]

I think you're understating the issue. Nobody likes to hit a button and watch as their character takes half a second to react.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. You're still thinking in terms of only gaming. I'm talking about EVERYTHING a computer can do on the internet. Business, school, MS-paint, web browsing, etc.

No amount of technology will ever fix this.

Any gamer that claims to be able to perceive the difference in video lag down to the speed of light is flat out lying to you.

Even on a local machine you have factors which create latency: Input lag from the keyboard or controller to the computer, for example. Video latency in terms of how good the monitor is, which is why you have gaming monitors with latency figures in the single digits of milliseconds.

To claim that technology will NEVER get a connection to the same level is grossly underestimating the rate at which technology is increasing. And again, so what if some fraction of a single percent of super-elite gamers notices a pea under their bed? That doesn't mean the service wouldn't still be absolutely viable or good, even, for the other 99.9999% of customers.

Nope, stop right there. It isn't comparable to PC gaming. Stadia is limited to 1080p 60fps, which just about any low end gaming PC can do today. While Google says it can do 4k but at 30 Mbps while 1080p needs 25 Mbps. Going from 1080p to 4k more than doubles the pixels but Stadia only needs 5 Mbps more. It goes to show what Google employee's are willing to say to promote Stadia.

Also PC gaming can do things like mods, emulators, and a wide range of choices where to buy our games.

When Google wants to come back down to reality then they could turn Stadia into a Linux gaming service since I hear their games will run on Debian, which I believe would push the tech forward in a proper direction. As we all know the future of gaming is on Linux.

Besides the latency you can't fix, the bandwidth that isn't there, the image quality you lose due to compression. Besides all those things working against Stadia, how are people going to buy games? How much is the service going to cost? Real world numbers not fantasy numbers. Is Stadia going to be $25, $15, $10, FREE per month? What about data cap costs? How much is the thin client plus controller? What happens if I stop paying for the service, do I get a copy of the game to play locally on my PC?

Hey, I actually agree with you that the technology isn't there yet, and that the business model for it is going to be a major factor. But in the future? I believe it's entirely possible we'll see something LIKE Stadia take a strong place in the market. People already enjoy cloud-based data usage. The simple fact that I can go anywhere and access my Steam account, for example. Extend that concept to being able to access the processing power from anywhere....that's what I see them doing.

I get that you don't like the technology. But I think you're not being realistic about how quickly tech like this is advancing.

[Vash The Stampede]

Any gamer that claims to be able to perceive the difference in video lag down to the speed of light is flat out lying to you.

Nobody told me that. It's just common sense among those who know computer networking. The idea is that if Nvidia can't make it work and Sony can't make it work then no amount of technology will fix it. It is simply a distance issue, which Google may have the advantage but not enough to make the lag perceivably none existing. The only solution is to move the servers closer and that still won't remove the latency.

Even on a local machine you have factors which create latency: Input lag from the keyboard or controller to the computer, for example. Video latency in terms of how good the monitor is, which is why you have gaming monitors with latency figures in the single digits of milliseconds.

And all that is cumulative. Add network lag and you have a recipe for some uncomfortable gaming. Using a wireless gampad or mouse+keyboard plus a HDTV plus a wireless internet connection plus Stadia is going to have some nasty results. Add someone streaming a Netflix movie while playing Stadia and you have issues. Most people don't use a wired input device with an Ethernet connection while using Google Fiber and a gaming monitor with low latency.

To claim that technology will NEVER get a connection to the same level is grossly underestimating the rate at which technology is increasing. And again, so what if some fraction of a single percent of super-elite gamers notices a pea under their bed? That doesn't mean the service wouldn't still be absolutely viable or good, even, for the other 99.9999% of customers.

Again, no amount of technology will break the laws of physics. The speed of light is absolute. You're again assuming that people are going to be totally OK with input lag that they can notice. People want things to respond instantly and anything noticeable is going to frustrate people. Super-elite gamers or not, it doesn't feel like technology is progressing when you're paying more money for cloud gaming to have worse image quality than a low end PC or console. And yes, cloud gaming is in the long run more expensive. If Google charges $10 a month for Stadia then that's $120 per year or $840 over the life of a console which is 7 years. That's not including the cost of a thin client, Stadia gamepad, data cap fees from your ISP, and limited choice where to buy games which will result in higher prices. Compared to buying a $400 PS4 and buying used games or just waiting until the game decreases in price. Also a PS4 will look and play better than Stadia, and yes better graphics because Stadia will have video compression which will reduce image quality.

Hey, I actually agree with you that the technology isn't there yet, and that the business model for it is going to be a major factor. But in the future? I believe it's entirely possible we'll see something LIKE Stadia take a strong place in the market. People already enjoy cloud-based data usage. The simple fact that I can go anywhere and access my Steam account, for example. Extend that concept to being able to access the processing power from anywhere....that's what I see them doing.

Besides all the reasons I think Cloud Gaming is dead before arrival, there's also the future of ARM SoC's. At some point we'll see devices like the Nvidia Shield TV get cheaper and more powerful to the point where it can compete with consoles for a very low price. PC gaming will move towards APU's at some point like Intel CPU's with Vega graphics. Hardware is going to be cheaper and still give consumers the ability to buy games outside of one vendor. Nobody wants to give that kind of monopolistic power to any company, and not especially to Google.

I get that you don't like the technology. But I think you're not being realistic about how quickly tech like this is advancing.

You keep using the word tech like you know what it means. Here is what Google is doing pretty much exactly and they're using SR-IOV Virtualization to do it. The ability to use one GPU in many Virtual Machines isn't new tech. Google did nothing amazing here, as you can do this at home. But going back to advancing tech, you can't fix latency. You would need an internet connection using quantum entanglement, which is the only way to break the speed of light.

[Cæli]

online game preservation is definitely important. we as a species could not just reproduce and survive, we're better than this. creation of beauty is a good reason for us to exist. if we don't preserve our beauty, then what are we trying to achieve. we're better than this. when blizz doesn't understand preservation, others are there to remind them the value of their work. wow classic gives me hope. we're still far off.

[gondrin]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. You're still thinking in terms of only gaming. I'm talking about EVERYTHING a computer can do on the internet. Business, school, MS-paint, web browsing, etc.




Any gamer that claims to be able to perceive the difference in video lag down to the speed of light is flat out lying to you.

Even on a local machine you have factors which create latency: Input lag from the keyboard or controller to the computer, for example. Video latency in terms of how good the monitor is, which is why you have gaming monitors with latency figures in the single digits of milliseconds.

To claim that technology will NEVER get a connection to the same level is grossly underestimating the rate at which technology is increasing. And again, so what if some fraction of a single percent of super-elite gamers notices a pea under their bed? That doesn't mean the service wouldn't still be absolutely viable or good, even, for the other 99.9999% of customers.



Hey, I actually agree with you that the technology isn't there yet, and that the business model for it is going to be a major factor. But in the future? I believe it's entirely possible we'll see something LIKE Stadia take a strong place in the market. People already enjoy cloud-based data usage. The simple fact that I can go anywhere and access my Steam account, for example. Extend that concept to being able to access the processing power from anywhere....that's what I see them doing.

I get that you don't like the technology. But I think you're not being realistic about how quickly tech like this is advancing.

Vash is right in the regard that, while we may not perceive a few MS of delay due to increased distance, it will be noticeable with anything that requires a near instant response time like FPS, racing or sports games. And that is if everything is working optimal. If any part between you and the rendering server starts to have issues, might as well as go play a turn based game because that is about all you will be able to play decently. Anyone who has played any MMOs when the servers lag should know this. All the delay is cumulative between each point in the network and you don't get to choose which path your connection takes.

Think of this, there is about a few ms lag on most controllers for the console, now add the normal 50 - 100 ms lag that most people will have on top of that(and that doesn't include anyone overseas). And no, there will never be an over the world connection that will match a direct connection to a PC. Think of this, from my connection, I have a 33ms ping to google.com. That is right now nearly 4 - 5x slower then my direct connection to a PC.

The other issue is that there is a major difference between cloud based data services and cloud based processing. While you can access your account anywhere, you generally aren't going to be doing anything that is real time interactive, just retrieving data to use on your local machine in some way. And once again, this is also taking into account an optimal connection. As we have seen with MMOs at launch, even Steam when a big game launches, the entire service slows down to a halt or outright crashes as the bandwidth needed to send the data, not including the insane amount of CPU and GPU power to run whatever game.

[Afrospinach]

That's highly dependent upon the technology, the pricing, and the convenience.

Right now it's not so great because greedy internet companies like Comcast don't want to upgrade their infrastructure, and actively fight to suppress innovations and upgrades so they can keep a stranglehold on the market. But if a giant like Google wants to push this technology, they'll have to increase funding and service levels for
connections with more bandwidth and less latency. That, in turn, will require companies like Comcast to keep up with advances or get slowly pushed out of the market.

Whether or not that can be successfully done, however....who knows?

Not a lot to do with greedy companies, you typically have 4-5x as much latency between yourself and your ISP compared with what is considered noticeable input lag territory. This is just going to torpedo certain genres.

[SirCowdog]

Think of this, there is about a few ms lag on most controllers for the console, now add the normal 50 - 100 ms lag that most people will have on top of that(and that doesn't include anyone overseas). And no, there will never be an over the world connection that will match a direct connection to a PC. Think of this, from my connection, I have a 33ms ping to google.com. That is right now nearly 4 - 5x slower then my direct connection to a PC.

The other issue is that there is a major difference between cloud based data services and cloud based processing. While you can access your account anywhere, you generally aren't going to be doing anything that is real time interactive, just retrieving data to use on your local machine in some way. And once again, this is also taking into account an optimal connection. As we have seen with MMOs at launch, even Steam when a big game launches, the entire service slows down to a halt or outright crashes as the bandwidth needed to send the data, not including the insane amount of CPU and GPU power to run whatever game.

I don't know if I agree with that, or maybe I don't fully understand the way Stadia works. I was under the impression that Stadia would use a mega-center for all the processing power, adding more or less depending on your needs(and ability to pay, no doubt). The information being sent and received would only be input data. Literally everything else would be run on the processing center.

This center would have a MASSIVE amount more processing power than your average MMO server.

But I believe you're correct about the number of jumps involved with data. Anything NOT on the Stadia center would just add one more loop for latency to pile up. An MMO not run from google's processing center, for example.

Still, I think the concept has potential. It's not like human beings have never innovated their way around an insurmountable problem before.

[Vash The Stampede]

I don't know if I agree with that, or maybe I don't fully understand the way Stadia works. I was under the impression that Stadia would use a mega-center for all the processing power, adding more or less depending on your needs(and ability to pay, no doubt). The information being sent and received would only be input data. Literally everything else would be run on the processing center.

This center would have a MASSIVE amount more processing power than your average MMO server.

Not exactly. You won't have access to a mega super computer but will be using a slice of it to play a game. To play games at 60 fps at 1080p is not difficult to do nowadays. Something like an Intel 9900K with a RTX 2080 would be laughable to play a game at 1080p 60 fps, unless you have RTX on in which case that makes sense but also not available on Stadia for obvious reasons.

Still, I think the concept has potential. It's not like human beings have never innovated their way around an insurmountable problem before.

If there was an actual benefit then yea, but cloud gaming is just DRM. Like most DRM, it offers nothing but problems for consumers. Like anything on the cloud, it's just someone else's computer. You could do what Stadia does with your own PC and some software, and probably get less latency too, but still latency. You'd pay no monthly fee and you can play all the games you own. If Microsoft and Sony weren't also doing cloud gaming, they could easily offer similar software for their PS5 and Xbox Two consoles that allows you to play the games you own on your hardware. You think everyone uses Netflix? You can make your own Netflix with Plex, Emby, and now Jellyfin.

[gondrin]

I don't know if I agree with that, or maybe I don't fully understand the way Stadia works. I was under the impression that Stadia would use a mega-center for all the processing power, adding more or less depending on your needs(and ability to pay, no doubt). The information being sent and received would only be input data. Literally everything else would be run on the processing center.

This center would have a MASSIVE amount more processing power than your average MMO server.

But I believe you're correct about the number of jumps involved with data. Anything NOT on the Stadia center would just add one more loop for latency to pile up. An MMO not run from google's processing center, for example.

Still, I think the concept has potential. It's not like human beings have never innovated their way around an insurmountable problem before.

Honestly, when it comes to Googles megacenters, those will be fine for the most part. It is the nodes along the way that could possibly be substandard at best. Once the nodes along the way get upgraded, latency wont be as much of an issue as it is now because you wont lose much as it only takes about 10 - 15 ms for light to travel from one coast to another which for the vast majority of people, wont be a noticeable thing. Thing about Stadia is that all you are doing is sending a signal for whatever controls you are doing and getting a stream of whatever is happening. It is the newest version of OnLive that will be tried or for something a little more up to date would be PSNow but without the local install.

[Vash The Stampede]

Honestly, when it comes to Googles megacenters, those will be fine for the most part. It is the nodes along the way that could possibly be substandard at best. Once the nodes along the way get upgraded, latency wont be as much of an issue as it is now because you wont lose much as it only takes about 10 - 15 ms for light to travel from one coast to another which for the vast majority of people, wont be a noticeable thing. Thing about Stadia is that all you are doing is sending a signal for whatever controls you are doing and getting a stream of whatever is happening. It is the newest version of OnLive that will be tried or for something a little more up to date would be PSNow but without the local install.

Should be noted that it isn't exactly the speed of light but the speed of electricity which is generally between .5 and .9 times the speed of light depending on the material it's passing through. A lot of that latency comes from hops like passing through a router or switch, which can happen less with less distance, but no guarantees. Most of everyone who's tried Stadia has not had a good experience with latency. And I wouldn't go by Digital Foundry's video since they were on a unrealistic best case scenario.

But there is the issue of what rights you have to the games you buy on the service. You buy the game and pay for the service, but if you stop paying for the service do you stop owning the game? This is the other 101 problems that comes with Stadia that isn't well understood. If you piss off the mighty Google do they ban your Stadia account like other digital distributions do nowadays? We know Google is making exclusive content, but will they go the route of Epic and buy exclusives or timed exclusives? We really need some laws to put things in their place because if I pay $60 then I should own the game, not rent it. Otherwise why am I paying a monthly fee? Not that I think that Stadia has a chance in hell to become successful, but that doesn't mean they won't take some good games with them as they fail.

[Mister Cheese]

So Ross and Leonard French(a copyright lawyer) had a debate. While they come to an agreement that it isn't fraud GaaS does violate a lot of consumer protection laws in many European countries. And if US laws were stricter they would here too.

There's really nothing to be done though.

[Mister Cheese]

Yes, because I'm sure he really believed that it was fraud and had nothing to do with getting more views by calling it a fucking fraud.

Edited: Also, yes, 2 hours and half, right on it! Let me just grab some popcorn and soda.

You're clearly not even interested in this conversation why are you leaving a post?

[SirCowdog]

.

There's really nothing to be done though.

How about just not buying GaaS games?

[SirCowdog]

Should be noted that it isn't exactly the speed of light but the speed of electricity which is generally between .5 and .9 times the speed of light depending on the material it's passing through. A lot of that latency comes from hops like passing through a router or switch, which can happen less with less distance, but no guarantees. Most of everyone who's tried Stadia has not had a good experience with latency. And I wouldn't go by Digital Foundry's video since they were on a unrealistic best case scenario.

But there is the issue of what rights you have to the games you buy on the service. You buy the game and pay for the service, but if you stop paying for the service do you stop owning the game? This is the other 101 problems that comes with Stadia that isn't well understood. If you piss off the mighty Google do they ban your Stadia account like other digital distributions do nowadays? We know Google is making exclusive content, but will they go the route of Epic and buy exclusives or timed exclusives? We really need some laws to put things in their place because if I pay $60 then I should own the game, not rent it. Otherwise why am I paying a monthly fee? Not that I think that Stadia has a chance in hell to become successful, but that doesn't mean they won't take some good games with them as they fail.

I think the market is going to require some amount of adjustment from the traditional "I bought this game it belongs to me in perpetuity" stance.

I think that business model will only exist within the realm of single-player games. The moment you want to play any form of online component, you MUST take that into account before paying for a game.

Because if you recognize that what you're paying for is ultimately temporary, you can make a better judgement for how much you're willing to pay.

[Video Games]

Wow is and will be the only multiplayer only game I'm going to play. I'm not going to waste 60 dollars+ on something I wont be able to use in a few years.

[Halicia]

The fact that people have made private servers shows that it isn't that different from buy2play games.

I'm not sure how there's any correlation there simply because people are willing to pirate both.